I have always wondered... why do Americans think driiling more in US will benefit CITIZENS??

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Are we really naive enough to believe it will

Reduce the price at the pump
Stay IN America
Not be sold to highest bidder anywhere in world


^^USA will only get a couple more Tax dollars... no other benefit
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
so, prices stay the same, we have an additional source of oil, and we created new jobs.

/endoftheworld.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
so, prices stay the same, we have an additional source of oil, and we created new jobs.

/endoftheworld.
LOL.. new jobs.. lol


We need NEW CONTRACTS on that oil we give away to these people
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
I'm not educated enough on this matter to know what would really happen. I think people see countries like in the Middle East who are rich because of oil and think "we could be like that". I don't really think anyone would know what the US would be like or price of oil if we went full steam ahead and did everything we could to suck up oil in the US. Not just ANWR, not just offshore drilling, but everything.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Same thing as now.. How many of the biggest oil companies are US companies? What is the price of fuel... see those offshore wells we do have... they barely affect the price of fuel on the shoreline closest to them.. Highest Bidder please.. next


This oil is pulled/extracted etc.. BY CORPORATIONS FOR CORPORATIONS .. << who in turn get tax breaks and cheap ass oil contracts from our politicians
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: dahunan
-snip-
^^USA will only get a couple more Tax dollars... no other benefit
That's incorrect.

Since we're talkin about drilling on public lands, the US government ends up with about 40% of the gross revenue from royalties, lease fees etc.

E.g., with about 16 bilion Barrels in ANWAR at $100 per barrel, the US gov (we the poeple) would get over $600 billion in revenue. That could be used to fund alt energy etc.

Add to that the amount of US money that would be kept *in-house* instead of being sent abroad and the implications that go with it.

I think a better question is "why do Democrats think drilling more in US WON'T benefit CITIZENS??"

Fern
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
yeah, I mean, it's not like McCain is advocating a comprehensive energy policy or anything.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: dahunan
-snip-
^^USA will only get a couple more Tax dollars... no other benefit
That's incorrect.

Since we're talkin about drilling on public lands, the US government ends up with about 40% of the gross revenue from royalties, lease fees etc.

E.g., with about 16 bilion Barrels in ANWAR at $100 per barrel, the US gov (we the poeple) would get over $600 billion in revenue. That could be used to fund alt energy etc.

Add to that the amount of US money that would be kept *in-house* instead of being sent abroad and the implications that go with it.

I think a better question is "why do Democrats think drilling more in US WON'T benefit CITIZENS??"

Fern
Do you have anything to back this up.. I bet they have so many loopholes it would even make your head spin...

 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: dahunan
-snip-
^^USA will only get a couple more Tax dollars... no other benefit
That's incorrect.

Since we're talkin about drilling on public lands, the US government ends up with about 40% of the gross revenue from royalties, lease fees etc.

E.g., with about 16 bilion Barrels in ANWAR at $100 per barrel, the US gov (we the poeple) would get over $600 billion in revenue. That could be used to fund alt energy etc.

Add to that the amount of US money that would be kept *in-house* instead of being sent abroad and the implications that go with it.

I think a better question is "why do Democrats think drilling more in US WON'T benefit CITIZENS??"

Fern
Do you have anything to back this up.. I bet they have so many loopholes it would even make your head spin...
Do you have anything to back up your OP? Burden of proof is upon you.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: dahunan
-snip-
^^USA will only get a couple more Tax dollars... no other benefit
That's incorrect.

Since we're talkin about drilling on public lands, the US government ends up with about 40% of the gross revenue from royalties, lease fees etc.

E.g., with about 16 bilion Barrels in ANWAR at $100 per barrel, the US gov (we the poeple) would get over $600 billion in revenue. That could be used to fund alt energy etc.

Add to that the amount of US money that would be kept *in-house* instead of being sent abroad and the implications that go with it.

I think a better question is "why do Democrats think drilling more in US WON'T benefit CITIZENS??"

Fern
U.S. could lose billions in oil royalties

A GAO report says omissions and litigation could keep the federal government from recouping $53 billion in oil royalties, even as oil companies enjoy record profits.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,069
499
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
Plowing 15 billion a year for 10 years wont do shit excect make a select few rich. The technolgy field for alternatives is just getting started. You have to be brain dead to believe we will be off oil in 10 or even 20 years.

How many wars are you willing to wage to keep our domestic oil supplies untouched?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jpeyton
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
Plowing 15 billion a year for 10 years wont do shit excect make a select few rich. The technolgy field for alternatives is just getting started. You have to be brain dead to believe we will be off oil in 10 or even 20 years.

How many wars are you willing to wage to keep our domestic oil supplies untouched?
My problem is that drilling for oil is being completely misrepresented. It isn't a fix, and lack of drilling isn't driving up the cost of oil, which is what the Reps have been pushing. I'm not against it, but the way it's going to work in reality is to do little or nothing for the US and be a great political topic of discussion here. As far as alternatives, no one is really doing a damn thing of substance but talk about it, and there are no real intentions of getting us off of oil.
 

LostUte

Member
Oct 13, 2005
98
0
0
The oil will not really bring the price down at the pump, but it will reduce our trade deficit and boost the economy. In addition, the government gets leasing and tax revenues.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jpeyton
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
Plowing 15 billion a year for 10 years wont do shit excect make a select few rich. The technolgy field for alternatives is just getting started. You have to be brain dead to believe we will be off oil in 10 or even 20 years.

How many wars are you willing to wage to keep our domestic oil supplies untouched?
False question = Epic Fail

US oil demand is now 20 mb/d. In five years starting with the energy crisis of the 70's we slashed oil consumption by 25%. I feel safe in saying the United States can do it again.

The question is not ""be off oil in 10 or even 20 years"". We are quite capable over a generation of continually reducing our overall consumption of oil.

And you don't seem to have a problem with spending $16 billion every two months in The War of Illegal Occupation ...
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: LostUte
The oil will not really bring the price down at the pump, but it will reduce our trade deficit and boost the economy. In addition, the government gets leasing and tax revenues.
Which makes the dollar stronger making prices go down. Drilling will bring prices down anytime you add supply to the market prices go down. The oil market needs another stable supply of oil. To much of the worlds oil supply is in the hands of unstable governments. Drilling adds jobs, gives the government a shitload of money,keeps money in the country,makes the dollar stronger and lowers the prices at the pump. A win for all americans well except the tree huggers who want the public to use horses for transpertation.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: dahunan
-snip-
^^USA will only get a couple more Tax dollars... no other benefit
That's incorrect.

Since we're talkin about drilling on public lands, the US government ends up with about 40% of the gross revenue from royalties, lease fees etc.

E.g., with about 16 bilion Barrels in ANWAR at $100 per barrel, the US gov (we the poeple) would get over $600 billion in revenue. That could be used to fund alt energy etc.

Add to that the amount of US money that would be kept *in-house* instead of being sent abroad and the implications that go with it.

I think a better question is "why do Democrats think drilling more in US WON'T benefit CITIZENS??"

Fern
Do you have anything to back this up.. I bet they have so many loopholes it would even make your head spin...
I found the 40% figure on an anti-oil company cite while researching oil company subsidies (when I get the time I'll debunk much of what has been posted here by the Dem anti-drilling crowd - but I digress); they were complaining that our take of 40% of the revenue was lower than others (I was wondering at the time if that included the majority of countries who have nationalized their oil production).

I couldn't find that quickly, but I did find this, and I understated the above royalty amount as you can see.

? BP (formerly British Petroleum), one of the world?s largest oil companies. testified that the federal government?s take for leases in the Gulf of Mexico (45 percent) was lower than 9 out of 10 other fiscal systems presented, including Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, California, and Louisiana (between 51 percent and 57 percent).

? ConocoPhillips, Alaska?s number-one oil producer in 2005, testified that the federal government?s take for leases in the Gulf of Mexico (43 percent) was lower than all 8 other fiscal systems presented, including the United Kingdom (52 percent) and Norway (76 percent).

? CRA International (formerly Charles River Associates), a global firm specializing in business consultancy and economics, testified that the federal government?s take in the Gulf of Mexico?both deepwater (42 percent) and shallow water (50 percent)?was lower than the 6 other fiscal systems it evaluated, including Australia (61 percent).

? Daniel Johnston and Company, an independent petroleum advisory firm providing services to the oil and gas industry, testified that the federal government?s take in the Gulf of Mexico for deepwater (between 37 and 41 percent) was 4th lowest and for shallow water (between 48 and 51 percent) was 8th lowest among 50 fiscal systems it evaluated.

? Van Meurs Corporation?a company which provides international consulting services in several areas including petroleum legislation, contracts, and negotiations?reported that the federal government?s take in the Gulf of Mexico (40 percent) was the lowest among 10 fiscal systems it evaluated, including Alaska (53 percent) and Angola (64 percent). It should be recognized that the studies presented in this testimony were done before the recent increase in the royalty rate for future deepwater leases in the Gulf of Mexico. This action will, as new leases are added to the mix over time, cause the average government take in the Gulf of Mexico to rise somewhat. In addition, 4 of the 5 studies compared government take based on 11 fiscal systems or fewer. A comparison of a much larger number of fiscal systems provides more comprehensive information. In this regard, we found that other expanded government-take studies have been issued. These are summarized below and more details are presented
Link It's a PDF file - see page 5 for the above info.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: dahunan
-snip-
-snip-
U.S. could lose billions in oil royalties

A GAO report says omissions and litigation could keep the federal government from recouping $53 billion in oil royalties, even as oil companies enjoy record profits.

This has nothing to do with the current discusion about drilling. That's an well-known old problem committed by the Clinton admin. The Clinton people left a standard royalty provision out of the leases it signed back then - supposedly by accident. The standard clause omitted by the Clinton admin would have kicked up royalties in these times of higher per barrel prices.

From your link:

During the 1990's Congress gave oil companies a pass on royalty payments in order to encourage deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and many in Congress regret it.

It has nothing to do with any current leases, which as is noted above, increase the royalty amount.

Fern
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
As I understand the context the oil companies are seeking move the 'old rules' forward - and yes, it will be 10 years or more before this winds it way through the courts ...
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Fern

I think a better question is "why do Democrats think drilling more in US WON'T benefit CITIZENS??"

Fern
Because we've already seen what Republicans do with oil profits.
You mean those evil american citizens who have shares of oil companies? Those evil people who are saving for retirement or whos work place has the pension plan invested in oil.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Tons of high paying jobs accross a ton of fields, taxes paid by those jobs, taxes paid by the oil companies themselves, royalties, etc....


And the Dems reasons not to drill are??
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY